How do you take a bunch of guns and explosions and make people care about them? If you're working on the Call of Duty franchise, you create characters that actually matter. Jack Baldwin interviews Jesse Stern, the writer of Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2.

While I do care about most (see bottom of post) of the main characters in MW2, I just did not give a shit about the random civilians in "No Russian". How am I supposed to feel emotion about them, you know? They don't even talk or have names. I care about them as much as I cared about hitting a civilian with my car in GTA.

That mission didn't deserve its controversy.

On the other hand, I usually felt some emotion for some of the randomly generated soldiers in CoD, because they talked and had funny names.

Side note: I fucking hated Ghost because of his stupid mask. No emotion for this douchebag.

On the other hand, I usually felt some emotion for some of the randomly generated soldiers in CoD, because they talked and had funny names.

I know. A guy called "Meat" deserved to die of multiple venereal diseases, not to be gunned down by the Brazilian mob.

I fought like hell to keep him alive as long as possible. Especially on Veteran, where that mission is the second hardest in the game due to a really lengthy solo segment. The safehouse was a bigger bitch...

"Can you still make the story work?" His reply? "No! But I'll figure it out."THIS is exactly why the stories in FPS are so mind-blowingly disjointed, yet some still manage to show glimpses of absolute brilliance. Seriously, they need to bear the writer's opinion first, by all means!

Onyx Oblivion:While I do care about most (see bottom of post) of the main characters in MW2, I just did not give a shit about the random civilians in "No Russian". How am I supposed to feel emotion about them, you know? They don't even talk or have names. I care about them as much as I cared about hitting a civilian with my car in GTA.

Side note: I fucking hated Ghost because of his stupid mask. No emotion for this douchebag.

Onyx Oblivion:While I do care about most (see bottom of post) of the main characters in MW2, I just did not give a shit about the random civilians in "No Russian". How am I supposed to feel emotion about them, you know? They don't even talk or have names. I care about them as much as I cared about hitting a civilian with my car in GTA.

That mission didn't deserve its controversy.

On the other hand, I usually felt some emotion for some of the randomly generated soldiers in CoD, because they talked and had funny names.

Side note: I fucking hated Ghost because of his stupid mask. No emotion for this douchebag.

I agree with you. In fact, if you take a peek at the basement floor when one of the Russians is filling his comrades with lead you can see that they all die the same way. Did you know that the funny names are actually randomly generated from the game credits? RANDOM GAME TRIVIA!

And yes, Ghost was a dick. He had MORE than enough time to react after Shepherd shot Roach, BUT NOOOOOOOOO, he had to be the useless prick whoring the ACR and get shot too! HE EVEN TOOK AIM! YOU DON'T NEED TO TAKE AIM AT POINT BLANK!Douche, he is.

Onyx Oblivion:While I do care about most (see bottom of post) of the main characters in MW2, I just did not give a shit about the random civilians in "No Russian". How am I supposed to feel emotion about them, you know? They don't even talk or have names. I care about them as much as I cared about hitting a civilian with my car in GTA.

Side note: I fucking hated Ghost because of his stupid mask. No emotion for this douchebag.

Onyx Oblivion:While I do care about most (see bottom of post) of the main characters in MW2, I just did not give a shit about the random civilians in "No Russian". How am I supposed to feel emotion about them, you know? They don't even talk or have names. I care about them as much as I cared about hitting a civilian with my car in GTA.

That mission didn't deserve its controversy.

On the other hand, I usually felt some emotion for some of the randomly generated soldiers in CoD, because they talked and had funny names.

Side note: I fucking hated Ghost because of his stupid mask. No emotion for this douchebag.

I agree with you. In fact, if you take a peek at the basement floor when one of the Russians is filling his comrades with lead you can see that they all die the same way. Did you know that the funny names are actually randomly generated from the game credits? RANDOM GAME TRIVIA!

And yes, Ghost was a dick. He had MORE than enough time to react after Shepherd shot Roach, BUT NOOOOOOOOO, he had to be the useless prick whoring the ACR and get shot too! HE EVEN TOOK AIM! YOU DON'T NEED TO TAKE AIM AT POINT BLANK!Douche, he is.

That doesn't mean he's a douche, just an idiot.I kinda liked him, not as great a character as MacTavish though.OT: Private Elder in COD. Private Fucking Elder. The guy had little dialogue but, man, did I try to save that bastard every time on that god-forsaken Brecourt level.Writing isn't even that important.

spiritslayr:Lol, it does seem somewhat likely that ghost = gaz as I'm pretty sure they're voiced by the same person.

They are voiced by the same person, i remember him being interviewed in a video on inside xbox.It is annoying that they recycled the "bloody hell, we just got our arses kicked" in multiplayer just because they can say it is ghost saying it now.

Side note: I fucking hated Ghost because of his stupid mask. No emotion for this douchebag.

Ghost is actually Gaz back from the dead, he lost half his face to a .50cal round back in CoD4 and now he must hide it under his gimp mask.

This is exactly what i thought (because i would rather have gaz back than have ghost) because it is the same voice but you mysteriously cant see his face and ghosts are dead people... Makes sense to me

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is the Citizen Kane of repeatedly shooting people in the face. The storyline makes less sense than a gas ladder, but in terms of technical achievement, this is an undoubted masterpiece.

CAW4:Copying Yatzee doesn't make you look cool, it just shows how weak your argument really is, if you're just copying someone else's opinion, or can't come up with their own material for why it's bad.

Things that didn't make much sense to me: -

1) Why on earth would a footsoldier get selected to become an undercover operative? Surely someone with a Russian Heritage and an undercover background would have been a better choice no?

2) What kind of terrorist leader knowingly puts himself in direct danger? The problem with No Russian from my perspective is the fact that it would only take 1 ying yang special forces with a sniper rifle to put a permanent end to Makarovs little scheme. No terrorist leader would put himself at that level of risk in reality. Let alone the fact that there is no way that they'd have not been caught on camera, even if they did get away using the ambulance.

3) Shepard's motivation. That things go tits up and he's attempting to clean house is one thing, but what exactly was he trying to do before then?

CAW4:Copying Yatzee doesn't make you look cool, it just shows how weak your argument really is, if you're just copying someone else's opinion, or can't come up with their own material for why it's bad.

Things that didn't make much sense to me.

1) Why on earth would a footsoldier get selected to become an undercover operative. Surely someone with a Russian Heritage and an undercover background would have been a better choice no?

2) What kind of terrorist leader knowingly puts himself in direct danger? The problem with No Russian from my perspective is the fact that it would only take 1 ying yang special forces with a sniper rifle to put a permanent end to Makarovs little scheme. Let alone the fact that there is no way that they'd have not been caught on camera, even if they did get away using the ambulance.

3) Shepard's motivation. That things go tits up and he's attempting to clean house is one thing, but what exactly was he trying to do before then?

If you've got logical answers that would be great.

And here's more easily countered arguments

1) The point is that he's going to die and get the U.S. implicated in the attack. It's all but said that for at least that part Makarov and Shepard are working together, since they both want a war against the U.S. but for different reasons; Makarov to simply kill Americans and Shepard to showcase the U.S. military's power.

2) Here's where 'it's a game' makes sense. Yes, it would probably be more realistic to simply let it be said that your character is working on Makarov's op, it plays more into a story perspective to show him as this evil civilian killing bastard. Who says he couldn't have had someone cut the feed for him, or have the Russian government suppress it, or as simple as when he's blowing away the guys running out of the security station, he put some rounds into the recording device as well as the security. The ambulance was simply to get out without a huge car chase.

3) And here's my problem with Escapists; they can't see a neon sign two feet in front of their faces. Remember the end of the game, when Shepard says "5 years ago, I lost 30000 men in the blink of an eye, and the world just fuckin' watched. Tomorrow, there will be no shortage of volunteers, no shortage of patriots. I know you understand." He's saying when the nuke went off in CoD4, none of the U.S. people cared about that little backwards nation being blown off, nor about the soldiers and Marines that died, so he wants to show the people of America that war is hell and we need people to fight in them by bringing the fight home. After Loose Ends he's simply trying to get rid of the evidence that Makarov has against him, and all the soldiers involved, so that the American people don't distrust their military leaders because of him.

P.S. Before people start going off against my comments in #2 (specificly "it's a game"), remember that, despite what some fanboys might say about its realism, the CoD series is, at its core, an arcade shooter. It's not a sim like Operation Flashpoint, and should be given leeway with the amount of realism in it. Anyone who doesn't take it as an arcade shooter has no right complaining about the game, if they can't be bothered to learn anything about it.

Copying Yatzee doesn't make you look cool, it just shows how weak your argument really is, if you're just copying someone else's opinion, or can't come up with their own material for why it's bad.

*sigh*

I don't need a review to realize how over-the-top ridiculous some of MW2 story elements are. Let me give you some insight:

1. Russia launches surprise attack on USThis is the most ridiculous of the whole bunch. Do you have any idea how many merchant-, cruise-, and military ships travel the oceans these days? Not to mention airplanes and civilian satellites in orbit? The notion of a massive invasion going unnoticed is just as stupid as the existence of a single "kill switch" that disables the entire US survaillance system.

2. Russia invades the US over a terrorist attackThis is almost- but not quite as ridiculous as number one. You don't start a direct war against a nuclear armed superpower because some nutjobs shot down your countrymen. Not even India dared attack Pakistan after the Mumbai attacks. And that even though Pakistan is Indias arch-enemy, India is the stronger of the two, and they are constantly engaged in conflicts over Kashmir.

3. Russia launches massive attack without preperationYou don't send a massive invasion force anywhere with just a few days or weeks of preparation. Doesn't work that way. Not to mention the fact that contemporary Russia doesn't have nearly the power-projection ability and servicable equipment to perform such a task.

4. Helicopters and Fighter jets raining from the skyThe sky must truly be infested with metal cockroaches for three of them to fall within a 20m radius of the player within a few seconds. I guess the Russians secretly built 10 aircraft carriers over night to carry them all along.

5. A nuclear missile taking out the ISSThe chances of an ICBM heading for the US being anywhere near the ISS must be like winning the lottery twice. Anyway, the destructive potential of a nuclear detonation in space is very diminished, as most of the destruction is caused by the shock wave, which will not exist in space due to the vacuum. The only damage a warhead could do is "melt" the station with the plasma energy, take out it's systems or a direct hit.

Obviously most of my grudges stem from the whole idea of Russia invading the US. Which is a cheap way of having combat on US soil. It would still be ridiculous even if it was 1980 and the agressor was the Soviet Union. But todays Russia? That is just outrageously stupid and cheaply implemented story-wise. Kinda reminds me of how humanity beat the aliens in "Independence Day" by uploading a computer virus on their mothership. I'm sorry, but that is just insulting my intelligence.

And the -heartbreaking-, impossible to disable music during the US levels was truly a test of willpower.

By the way, it doesn't make you look cool to smart-ass people. That just makes you look like a smart-ass.

If I was Allen I would have just shot Makarov and the other two terrorists in the face before they killed any civilians. Then surrender and let the state department have my ass outta russkie jail in a week.

Copying Yatzee doesn't make you look cool, it just shows how weak your argument really is, if you're just copying someone else's opinion, or can't come up with their own material for why it's bad.

Obviously most of my grudges stem from the whole idea of Russia invading the US. Which is a cheap way of having combat on US soil. It would still be ridiculous even if it was 1980 and the aggressor was the Soviet Union. But today's Russia? That is just outrageously stupid and cheaply implemented story-wise. Kinda reminds me of how humanity beat the aliens in "Independence Day" by uploading a computer virus on their mother ship. I'm sorry, but that is just insulting my intelligence.

And the -heartbreaking-, impossible to disable music during the US levels was truly a test of willpower.

By the way, it doesn't make you look cool to smart-ass people. That just makes you look like a smart-ass.

Copying Yatzee doesn't make you look cool, it just shows how weak your argument really is, if you're just copying someone else's opinion, or can't come up with their own material for why it's bad.

*sigh*

I don't need a review to realize how over-the-top ridiculous some of MW2 story elements are. Let me give you some insight:

1. Russia launches surprise attack on USThis is the most ridiculous of the whole bunch. Do you have any idea how many merchant-, cruise-, and military ships travel the oceans these days? Not to mention airplanes and civilian satellites in orbit? The notion of a massive invasion going unnoticed is just as stupid as the existence of a single "kill switch" that disables the entire US survaillance system.

2. Russia invades the US over a terrorist attackThis is almost- but not quite as ridiculous as number one. You don't start a direct war against a nuclear armed superpower because some nutjobs shot down your countrymen. Not even India dared attack Pakistan after the Mumbai attacks. And that even though Pakistan is Indias arch-enemy, India is the stronger of the two, and they are constantly engaged in conflicts over Kashmir.

3. Russia launches massive attack without preperationYou don't send a massive invasion force anywhere with just a few days or weeks of preparation. Doesn't work that way. Not to mention the fact that contemporary Russia doesn't have nearly the power-projection ability and servicable equipment to perform such a task.

4. Helicopters and Fighter jets raining from the skyThe sky must truly be infested with metal cockroaches for three of them to fall within a 20m radius of the player within a few seconds. I guess the Russians secretly built 10 aircraft carriers over night to carry them all along.

5. A nuclear missile taking out the ISSThe chances of an ICBM heading for the US being anywhere near the ISS must be like winning the lottery twice. Anyway, the destructive potential of a nuclear detonation in space is very diminished, as most of the destruction is caused by the shock wave, which will not exist in space due to the vacuum. The only damage a warhead could do is "melt" the station with the plasma energy, take out it's systems or a direct hit.

Obviously most of my grudges stem from the whole idea of Russia invading the US. Which is a cheap way of having combat on US soil. It would still be ridiculous even if it was 1980 and the agressor was the Soviet Union. But todays Russia? That is just outrageously stupid and cheaply implemented story-wise. Kinda reminds me of how humanity beat the aliens in "Independence Day" by uploading a computer virus on their mothership. I'm sorry, but that is just insulting my intelligence.

And the -heartbreaking-, impossible to disable music during the US levels was truly a test of willpower.

By the way, it doesn't make you look cool to smart-ass people. That just makes you look like a smart-ass.

1) Remember the ACS (Attack Characterization System) that you recovered from a Russian Military Base? And during the intro to The Hornets' Nest, where MacTavish says "The Russians must have copied the ACS module. Got the key to every lock in America."? You're right, there's no 'kill switch' for the US surveillance system, but having as much as the Russians had at that point was enough to fool it. And for civilian satellites, which ones are looking for signals of a Russian attack, and not just broadcasting reruns?

3) Once again, arcade shooter, not complete realism (plus, you might as well put the word 'important' before each date [i.e. 'Important Day 1, 15:43:52]).And if you're going to try to go after that, remember that after a revolution there's still some of the old guards left, and the Russian military might still be putting down Resistance from the Loyalists that you fought with in CoD4 (i.e. Kamarov).

4) Right, because the effects from a nuclear emp only affect some vehicles, right? And no army would ever attack the enemy nation's national capital, with its federal government all in one place, in force, right? And the Russian Air Force is made up of about 2 paper airplanes and a kite, right? And the Russian economy isn't (IRL) in the shitter because of them spending all their money on a massive military, right?

5) You must be right, no satellites would go down from a nuclear explosion in outer space, even though satellites have gone IRL down because of high altitude nuclear tests. (Yes, it was because of radiation belts over time, but once again, it's a game. Being told that a radiation belt caused the failure of a minor satellite doesn't have exactly the same impact.)

And completely forgetting that this is a fucking sequel doesn't make the story bad, it makes you an idiot.

Also, correcting someone isn't being a smart-ass, it's just being smart.

I've found Modern Warfare tends to ignore geopolitics altogether. For some people, this isn't a problem, but I find it incredibly frustrating. I liked CoD4, but all the time I was thinking that there is no way in hell that Ukraine and Azerbaijan is just going to sit back and let the Russian army, Russian terrorists, foreign specops and American warplanes simply walk in and have a little war in their country. They'd be raising a stink on the diplomatic front or the in the UN at the least, more likely getting their own army involved to shoo everyone out. After reading the silliness that takes place in Modern Warfare 2......I honestly have no interest in playing this game.

On things plot wise that I have read about, on point 3 I believe that Russia had recently come out of a civil war as well, just to add to the ridiculous logistics of invading the US. Not to mention that on the no Russian level, I believe Makarov makes no attempt to disguise his identity. I find it hard to believe that no one identified him, no security camera footage reveled his identity, yet that's the only explanation to why the plan worked, when such a high profile terrorist was personally leading the operation? And to why the Russian people still follow this man.....

Also, correcting someone isn't being a smart-ass, it's just being smart.

Carefully picking out certain elements from my critique and justifying them using plot events from the very same ludicrous storyline is not being smart... that is just... ah. Nevermind. I'm glad the MW2 storyline works for you.

But you were not -correcting- me. You were -insulting- me by suggesting I have no opinion of my own and that I'm just copying a popular reviewer. At least get your intentions straight.

Major Tom:For some people, this isn't a problem, but I find it incredibly frustrating.

Me too. Especially since the original CoD games come from a realistic background. Saving the world just doesn't feel right if the threat isn't at least marginally believable and realistic.After this, I wouldn't be too surprised if we see aliens and UFO in the next MW game.

I liked Modern Warfare 2, even its single-player mode, although I must admit the storyline did feel extremely rushed. You Escapist types are good people, but you're the only ones I've ever met who will gripe about being able to jump over a damn chasm in a damn snowmobile in a video game.

C'mon. Did Pac-Man have a believable storyline? Space Invaders? Diner Dash? Kane and Lynch: Dead Men? And yet, are these not all games you have briefly considered playing at some point?

Slightly more off-topic, but in a different way: if Ghost truly is Gaz in the future, I would not be at all surprised if he's not dead this time, either. It could be a hilarious running gag: every installment, Ghost changes his name (maybe next time "Silent Rip?") and loses another part of his face.

Was Ghost not taller than Gaz? Mind you its been a long time since I played either game.Maybe he can come back as an urn of ashes (since he and Roach were BBQ'd) that you can use as a smoke grenade or something.

I don't think the story was that bad, once you buy into the initial suspension of disbelief; not going to win any prizes for originality but it provided a reasonable backdrop for the action. Although I thought that they should have had a "previously on Modern Warfare..." montage at the start of the game, just to keep the different characters and plot threads fresh in your head.

I think the whole Makarov thing is Since the Ultra-Nationalists went ahead and won the civil war,*despite* the efforts of the heroes in the first game, he has a free hand to do just about anything he wants in terms of terrorism because there won't be any co-operation between Russia and the West in regards to taking him down.Russia is at this point already spoiling for a fight with the West, and after an act of war by foreign combatants on home soil (once Shepherd and Makarov sell him out so it's known he was working for the Us Military, and the Russians are not going to mention that one of their own was there too, even though they probably do know well who he is) they simply continue to roll on. They were already geared up and ready for the war, one can only presume that Sheperd has also been making sure that intel to that effect is not getting to the right people.The only "mistake" he made was trusting Shepherd who, after getting his war, then goes after Makarov as part of cleaning up.

Or did I miss something? Cos I'm not terribly sure my synopsis is right!!

Anyway, for all the people complaining about the story vs. the "realism" of the game. Please. It's about as close to real combat as eating a banana is to performing an endoscopy.

Would you have preferred a "realistic" game called "Call of Duty: Modern Diplomacy"? Press "G" to launch a Trade Embargo. I'll take the one on the left, you go right. Keep them talking about the price of sterling in the Eurozone until after the Prime Minister signs the treaty, or all hell will break loose."

Also, correcting someone isn't being a smart-ass, it's just being smart.

Carefully picking out certain elements from my critique and justifying them using plot events from the very same ludicrous storyline is not being smart... that is just... ah. Nevermind. I'm glad the MW2 storyline works for you.

But you were not -correcting- me. You were -insulting- me by suggesting I have no opinion of my own and that I'm just copying a popular reviewer. At least get your intentions straight.

Completely ignoring every single point doesn't make the story bad, it makes you someone who forces themselves to be ignorant, and what am I supposed to use to justify events in a fictional story? Real life? That would make me more idiotic than the majority of people who don't like the story. If you have a justifiable beef with the game (like simply not liking the gameplay), I'd be perfectly fine with you not liking the game, but disliking it out of sheer stupidity and ignorance pisses me off.

Also, every listed part WAS correcting you, and with 9 out of every 10 people on this site verbally jerking off Yahtzee, and quoting him every chance they get, and with you using the same exact scenario with a thesaurus being the only difference between your quote and his, it was more than likely that what I said was true, but if it's not, please accept my sincerest apologies.

I wanted to find out how you can take a bunch of guns and explosions and make people care about them.

Hold the phone. I didn't give a rat's ash about the story. Cod 4,5,and 6's story was pretty boring. The jumping from one character to another gave any immersion a boot out the door. And I found the only way to enjoy the single player was to play it on easy and knife my way through the hordes of retarded enemies since each one seemed able to take an entire munition dump to the face before they die, and if you didn't continue to charge valiantly into the swarming masses they continued to spawn until the end of time. The online multiplayer is extremely easy to destroy people at. Even more so if you love to camp. The only reason I bother to play the games is that I sometimes need a break from good fps games like counter strike.

Copying Yatzee doesn't make you look cool, it just shows how weak your argument really is, if you're just copying someone else's opinion, or can't come up with their own material for why it's bad.

*sigh*

I don't need a review to realize how over-the-top ridiculous some of MW2 story elements are. Let me give you some insight:

1. Russia launches surprise attack on USThis is the most ridiculous of the whole bunch. Do you have any idea how many merchant-, cruise-, and military ships travel the oceans these days? Not to mention airplanes and civilian satellites in orbit? The notion of a massive invasion going unnoticed is just as stupid as the existence of a single "kill switch" that disables the entire US survaillance system.

2. Russia invades the US over a terrorist attackThis is almost- but not quite as ridiculous as number one. You don't start a direct war against a nuclear armed superpower because some nutjobs shot down your countrymen. Not even India dared attack Pakistan after the Mumbai attacks. And that even though Pakistan is Indias arch-enemy, India is the stronger of the two, and they are constantly engaged in conflicts over Kashmir.

3. Russia launches massive attack without preperationYou don't send a massive invasion force anywhere with just a few days or weeks of preparation. Doesn't work that way. Not to mention the fact that contemporary Russia doesn't have nearly the power-projection ability and servicable equipment to perform such a task.

4. Helicopters and Fighter jets raining from the skyThe sky must truly be infested with metal cockroaches for three of them to fall within a 20m radius of the player within a few seconds. I guess the Russians secretly built 10 aircraft carriers over night to carry them all along.

5. A nuclear missile taking out the ISSThe chances of an ICBM heading for the US being anywhere near the ISS must be like winning the lottery twice. Anyway, the destructive potential of a nuclear detonation in space is very diminished, as most of the destruction is caused by the shock wave, which will not exist in space due to the vacuum. The only damage a warhead could do is "melt" the station with the plasma energy, take out it's systems or a direct hit.

Obviously most of my grudges stem from the whole idea of Russia invading the US. Which is a cheap way of having combat on US soil. It would still be ridiculous even if it was 1980 and the agressor was the Soviet Union. But todays Russia? That is just outrageously stupid and cheaply implemented story-wise. Kinda reminds me of how humanity beat the aliens in "Independence Day" by uploading a computer virus on their mothership. I'm sorry, but that is just insulting my intelligence.

And the -heartbreaking-, impossible to disable music during the US levels was truly a test of willpower.

By the way, it doesn't make you look cool to smart-ass people. That just makes you look like a smart-ass.

1) Remember the ACS (Attack Characterization System) that you recovered from a Russian Military Base? And during the intro to The Hornets' Nest, where MacTavish says "The Russians must have copied the ACS module. Got the key to every lock in America."? You're right, there's no 'kill switch' for the US surveillance system, but having as much as the Russians had at that point was enough to fool it. And for civilian satellites, which ones are looking for signals of a Russian attack, and not just broadcasting reruns?

3) Once again, arcade shooter, not complete realism (plus, you might as well put the word 'important' before each date [i.e. 'Important Day 1, 15:43:52]).And if you're going to try to go after that, remember that after a revolution there's still some of the old guards left, and the Russian military might still be putting down Resistance from the Loyalists that you fought with in CoD4 (i.e. Kamarov).

4) Right, because the effects from a nuclear emp only affect some vehicles, right? And no army would ever attack the enemy nation's national capital, with its federal government all in one place, in force, right? And the Russian Air Force is made up of about 2 paper airplanes and a kite, right? And the Russian economy isn't (IRL) in the shitter because of them spending all their money on a massive military, right?

5) You must be right, no satellites would go down from a nuclear explosion in outer space, even though satellites have gone IRL down because of high altitude nuclear tests. (Yes, it was because of radiation belts over time, but once again, it's a game. Being told that a radiation belt caused the failure of a minor satellite doesn't have exactly the same impact.)

And completely forgetting that this is a fucking sequel doesn't make the story bad, it makes you an idiot.

Also, correcting someone isn't being a smart-ass, it's just being smart.

1) because the US is the only power that could detect a massive fleet of ships, apparently there is no NATO, because i'm pretty sure great britian could and would be able to detect the russian fleet, especially if it went north sea route, or if it went though the red sea, and be able to dispatch some RAF aircraft.

2) it still reeks of handwavium, the notion that the essentially leaderless ultranationalists whom have lost a large amount of their hardware would win. (in the events of CoD4)3)huh? are you supporting tiamat's point? because it is true, and i have brought up some points in my response to 1)

4) he is saying that the notion of literal RAIN of choppas is unreasonable, which it totally is.

5) there is a lot of difference between radiation exposure and GETTING FREAKING BLOWN APART.

who's forgetting it's a sequel?

even still, the story is pretty damn bad because of the plot hole big enough for the russian navy to sail right through.